I have to agree with Jeff and Tom about Gary. I have challenged Gary in the past and may still challenge him in the future BUT with a new found respect and admiration for the man. He is intelligent, thoughtful, thought provoking, has strength of conviction, and a great sense of humor. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with him in DC. Now, as Jeff said, we may not always agree with Gary, but that will not lessen my respect for him. I eagerly look forward to any time I can get with Gary. And yes Gary, I will be buying the beer.

Now I have to add that we all need those message badges Gary!! An excellent way to promote your thoughts and ideas.

Ingo, some good thoughts there. It's good to see you getting involved here and I would encourage you to read as much of the background material provided on this great website. Keep an open mind and don't let anyone push you into their corner. No one will come to your house if they disagree.

As Gary is probably our leading "crashed and sank" believer I await his reply to your pst 35 above. A crash at sea is messy. Gary?

Ingo, good point about the crash and sink theory which makes the ditch and sink theory sound better. Eddie Rickenbackers B-17 went down within 15 minutes of ditching...As Cherry started his long glide downward, the men braced themselves for the crash. Bartek was standing behind the pilot, holding onto the levers to release the two big rafts. Rickenbacker was strapped to his seat on the right-hand side, holding a pillow to protect his face. Adamson was sitting on the deck, bracing his back against a mattress. Reynolds remained at his radio, sending a constant series of SOS signals — hoping someone somewhere might establish a fix on them. About the time someone yelled 'Only 50 feet left!' one engine sputtered and died. Rickenbacker glanced out a window and could see that the ocean was rough, with high swells. In a moment the big plane did a soft but loud belly-flop in the middle of a trough and skipped another 50 feet before coming to a stop against the waning slope of a swell. As crash landings at sea go, this one was about as good as they got. Had Cherry misjudged the waves by only a few seconds, the plane and its passengers might have sunk immediately.Green water immediately began gushing through smashed windows, making it impossible to salvage much of the survival equipment.

So---if I can be bold, Malcolm give us your theories of this mystery, good bad or other wise. It cant be any worse than some we heard this past weekend, believe me. Alien abduction has already been mentioned, as well as 'other' paranormal oddities. Marty will ensure that you get equal time. And if I have to stand in the corner for speaking out, its ok----been there before. But , Marty didnt slap my fingers, he shook my hand, because I made the effort. Its your turn. and if I'm out of line, I'm sure the other members will let me know. Tom

Theories -

1. Not a theory but a fact - Earhart is a very small footnote in aviation history. If she and Noonan hadn't disappeared they'd be forgotten now. Any discussion is simply clarifying a very small point.

2. My own view is that there are four possible scenarios. You all know them, so I won't repeat them, and as none have been proved or disproved then I will continue to say as I have said from the beginning that I have no firm favourite. TIGHAR have so far found nothing that changes my mind in their favour.

3. Therefore if TIGHAR's Nikumaroro hypothesis is to earn my acceptance then they have to demonstrate that Earhart landed there. Simple really - any other approach and I should be certified for giving way to messianic overtures.

4. And yes it would have cost me more than several thousand dollars to attend given where I live. But that presupposes I was convinced that the conference offered anything new and it hasn't.

I think that if Emily was a little girl in the States, talking about what she and/or her father witnessed, some people (including you?) may think differently. It may be a subconscious discrediting of natives as being too primitive to know what they are talking about. They may not have a Western-Anglo education, but we all share the common brain of Homo-Homo-Sapiens. How long did it take archaeologists to finally attribute Central American cities (or other great cities of past civilizations) to the people that live in the direct vicinity today?

Just a thought, hope you don't understand it the wrong way. I'm aware of my biases, at least most of the time.

Also, her father would not have mentioned airplane parts unless they were airplane parts or he believed them to be airplane parts. These must have diffirenciated themselves in some way from the rusting hulk farther down the coast.

In an attempt to look at things from all sides, I hope Emily did not have a motive for feeding incorrect information. Was there a motive for personal gain? That would be a problem.

Ingo, as a former professional archaeologist I have dealt on several occasions with witness statements like Emily's. I am fairly aware of the pitfalls, like for instance a trial lawyer would be examining witness accounts.

I was in a conversation the other night with two complete strangers when the subject matter turned to aircraft recovery. I mentioned TIGHAR and the AE research and told one fellow that he would curse me for the weeks he would spend on the site. Instead he thanked me. He said he did a High School term paper on AE and because of the admiration he gained for her - he named his daughter Amelia.

The Symposium was more than just TIGHAR presenting information. It was a gathering of like minded individuals. I say like minded in the sense that all who attended are interested in what happened to AE nd FN. By no means was everyone in agreement with the TIGHAR hypothesis and many different ideas were discussed. Just as we do in this forum. As Jeff has pointed out so many times in the past, we should thank TIGHAR for providing this forum to ALL who have an interest in what happened to AE.

I don't know why you Malcolm appear to be taking the position that TIGHAR members are all wrong and only you are right. It reminds me of the private marching out of step with his fellow soldiers when he asked why everyone else was out of step. Members of this forum are not lemmings rushing over the cliff because their leader told them to. Likewise we aren't going to rush over your cliff either. If you are going to post here then understand that some may agree with you and others may not. But if someone doesn't agree with you then that doesn't make them wrong. Just intelligent enough to make up their own mind and confident enough that they will tell you they don't agree.

By the way. Just because you deem something to be small in history doesn't mean you're right. It just means its small to you. I'm sure you aren't suggesting that your opinion is superior to ours. It just comes across that way when you write it.

Nice story Daniel. I'm thinking that her father doesn't think of Amelia as a small part of history. Good to know. Thanks for sharing.

Well, more objectively, here we all are so AE means something to us, and TIGHAR did a terrific job with the science and with the entertainment - and in never confusing the two; what an outfit!

LTM -

Well I am glad you enjoyed yourself - but as I have at my leisure read the evidence that is offered in support of the hypothesis and on consideration I find it insufficient to make this particular hypothesis preferable to the three others.

Now if "... it was a wonderful time of learning and sharing among many of us." doesn't have elements of messianic involvement then I don't know what does.

Actually what attracted me to the Nikumaroro hypothesis was less an interest in Earhart and more the derogatory comments posted about TIGHAR's efforts on other sites. Up until then I didn't really care much either way given Earhart's relative unimportance by that stage in her career, however out of curiosity I thought I'd see what the fuss was about. Now I am quite willing to say that TIGHAR have presented the data they claim to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis quite professionally and, as I have said before, I cannot fault that. But I hope you will understand that well-presented data is not necessarily data that confirms a hypothesis and that so far is what I find to be the case. Also that is why I, like others, am keeping an open mind on this hypothesis and the others until we see the results of the next trip.

I don't know why you Malcolm appear to be taking the position that TIGHAR members are all wrong and only you are right. etc. etc.

Yes all very nice but I think you will find that there are a number of people other than myself who have a problem with the evidence offered to support the hypothesis. So using terms like "...the private marching out of step with his fellow soldiers when he asked why everyone else was out of step" doesn't in reality advance your case one bit. I suggest that you stick to examining the individual items of evidence offered as I am doing.

DR. Malcolm. Thank you for clarifing your position for me. Now I have surely been enlightened. Seems to me that 'professionals' at times in their careers have to do refresher training. I know medical DR's do. My father, as a explosive ordnance disposal officer, had to do it every 2 years. And most of those professionals pay out of their own pockets, as I'm very sure the members of the symposium did. Even Colin Cobb flew in from Belfast (thank you Colin again!!!!). Now granted, Amelia is such a small footnote in history, and not worth your travel expenses. Especially if you are overseas---like Austraila, or New Zealand. I'm sure that traveling so far, some arrangements could have been made. Heck----I had a big room BY MYSELF---you could have stayed there and saved several hundred dollars. So I can certainly understand that. But to sit at your computer and down grade everyone that doesnt rise to your standards, or agree with your theories is lunacy. I met Dr. Tom King, and he certainly seems intelligent enough to make his own choices. He doesnt necessarily agree with alot of TIGHARS positions, but he supports the project. Tom Couch, Bob Ballard, Hillary Clinton, and thousands more seem to have interests in this project, but have their own views of the mystery. So does my 85 year old mother. Now--I'm not real smart, but I really dont think you are going to get any one of those intelligent people to accept YOUR views, sir. As a matter of fact, I would think alot of members would take offense to your position that TIGHAR needs to "earn your accpetance". TIGHAR, and its members dont need to earn anything from you.So---whats your purpose here? A professional naysayer? Fine. WE all need checks and balances. Gary showed us several. Personally, I think you are here, scouring this forum for information on the mystery for your own purposes. I'll just tell you that Ric Gillespie has put in many years of very hard work to get TIGHAR to the place it is. Along with some very trusted and credible people, TIGHAR is moving forward in its attempt to put the pieces of this very complicated puzzle together. So far, IMHO, they're doing just fine. This is an open forum, so you may say as you wish. BUT---that goes both ways. But, degrading TIGHAR or its members is a sure way NOT to be heard. Gee---we sure could have used your professional archaeological opinion in DC. OR it was probalby best that you didnt come----I'm sure respected archaeologists like Tom King and Lonnie Shorrer and other experts would have loved to have heard tales of your adventures. In the meantime, Ric, TIGHAR and Co. will continue to move forward in its pursuit of information, and possible evidence to support its hypothesis. Even if it doesnt find it, the pursuit, the journey, and the knowledge gained wil be worthwhile. With or without your help or acceptance.Tom

I happen to know lots of people who either partially disagree with the hypothesis or totally disagree. I respect all of them. My phrase about the private had nothing to do with "trying to advance my case" whatever that is. I stated that you appear to believe we are all wrong and only you are right. Simple opinion based on my observations. You can either agree or disagree.

Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.

So - that adds nothing to the discussion at all except a somewhat gratuitous attack while I have always been quite polite and objective in my discussion of the evidence presented.

If you find it difficult to accept that people can disagree with the value of the evidence so far produced to support the Nikumaroro hypothesis, yet decide not to spend several thousands of dollars just to do it in person rather than by using this perfectly convenient forum then that is your problem - not mine.

Suggesting that I "stick" to the same course as you just reaffirms that, yet again, you believe only your methodology is right.

My methodology is really quite simple - I look at each artifact and try and understand how it might advance or contradict a hypothesis. Just because one person sees an incontrovertible link with the subject of the hypothesis doesn't mean that someone else does. By questioning assumptions we eventually arrive at a close approximation of reality, it might not be the reality we were seeking but then any answer (providing it is right) is better than nothing.

Copyright 2019 by TIGHAR, a non-profit foundation. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be reproduced by xerographic, photographic, digital or any other means for any purpose. No portion of the TIGHAR Website may be stored in a retrieval system, copied, transmitted or transferred in any form or by any means, whether electronic, mechanical, digital, photographic, magnetic or otherwise, for any purpose without the express, written permission of TIGHAR. All rights reserved.